HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-03 Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, April 3,
1989 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins, Dee Wright, Gerald
Boyd, Robert Waldren and Robert Davis
OTHERS PRESENT: Freeman Wood, John Merrell, Boyd Harris and Elaine
Cattaneo
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 20, 1989 were approved as
distributed.
SIGN APPEAL NO. SA89-1
BOYD W HARRIS - 1803 GREEN ACRES RD
The only item was a sign appeal submitted by Boyd W. Harris- for -property located
at 1803 Green Acres Road and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was
for a variance from the Sign Ordinance: Article 17, Section 17B-9.
Chairman Mills advised that this item had been postponed from the last meeting.
Dr. Harris stated that the sign he has is a nice looking ,16 square foot sign and
it is not that far out of line with any other signs along there including Dr.
Stanton's and Dr. Renegar's signs. The VA Hospital has signs that are closer to
the highway than his sign is. Chairman Mills advised that the Board of Sign
Appeals has no jurisdiction over the VA Hospital and she believed that Dr.
Stanton's sign had been there since before this ordinance was established. Dr.
Harris noted that if it was moved back too much farther, it would run into a big
tree.
In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Dr. Harris stated that he had a sign
maker put the sign in.
Mr. Waldren stated that from what he understands, the sign is 7' from the right-
of-way. He asked what the requirements are. Freeman Wood, Inspection
Superintendent, stated that the requirement is with a 10 square foot sign they
have to have a 15' setback. Then there is an increase of 2' in size for each
foot it is moved back so that would put it at 18'. Therefore, this sign would
have to go back another 11' from where it is.
• Board of Sign Appeals
April 3, 1989
Page 2
•
•
Dr. Harris stated that the sign will
moved back that far and it wouldn't
the sign he had before was almost in
be way back under the tree if it has to be
be seen in the summertime. He advised that
the ditch and he moved it back quite a ways.
Chairman Mills stated that when she drove by there, it seemed that the sign would
be more visible if it were moved back farther because of the shrubs that almost
totally cover it coming from the North.
Mr. Tompkins asked if
they have five years
probably should be in
Dr. Stanton's sign should be in conformance by now. Didn't
to bring it into compliance? Mr. Wood answered that it
compliance by now so they probably should cite him also.
Mr. Tompkins asked if they have a lot of walk-in traffic. Dr. Harris stated that
most of it is patrons coming in, but people that don't know where he is would
have to read the sign.
Chairman Mills asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak to this. There
being no response, the public hearing was closed and discussion took place among
the Board members.
John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that viewing this sign from an
aesthetic standpoint, the staff had no problem with it. Over the last few
months, the staff has made a negative recommendation.onthe:various sign appeals
that have come to the Board and they tend to prefer to view a sign appeal in the
same sense that they do a zoning variance looking at aesthetics and traffic
safety. However, although those aspects are important they are not the only
thing that should be considered. Therefore, the staff's feeling is from the
standpoint of a hardship and other factors related to signs elsewhere in the
area, they cannot support the appeal but looking at it from an aesthetic
standpoint, they do think it is an attractive sign.
Mr. Boyd stated that they don't want to be put into a position of judging
aesthetics because signs are too much like people's children. If they start
giving variances based upon that, they would run into all sorts of problems. He
added that it looks like this sign could be moved back and if Dr. Harris paid
money for the sign person to put up that one, he should tell the sign person what
the problem is and have him work it out. He advised that they have had problems
with the sign people not getting the right information before.
Mr. Wood stated that as far as he knew, Dr. Harris' sign person didn't even get a
permit or even check with them on what the setbacks needed to be. He stated that
he didn't know the gentleman so he didn't know if they had any previous problems
with this particular person.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he supports the same idea that Mr. Boyd has
the test of reasonableness. If the others in the area except
mentioned are in conformance, he doesn't see a "hardship" to move it
it would be detrimental to the intent of signage.
only
for
back
he uses
the two
or that
1
• Board of Sign Appeals
April 3, 1989
Page 3
•
Mr. Becker stated that this is a chance to correct an error that the Board of
Directors made a few years ago.
Mr. Waldren stated that he basically agrees with what has been said.
MOTION
Gerald Boyd moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed 6-
0-0.
Chairman Mills advised that Dr. Harris would need to talk to the staff to find
out how far back the sign should be moved.
Mr. Becker stated that he had trouble finding Dr. Harris' address so if he was
able to incorporate the address along with the sign, it might help.
OTHER BUSINESS
MEASURING OF SIGNS:
John Merrell advised that several months ago the Board of Sign Appeals had
inquired as to whether or not the staff could submit to them a few sketches that
would simply illustrate the way the Inspection staff actually measures the
surface area of these signs. He added that they have attempted to do so with a
few typical examples which are attached to the agenda (see attachment) including
a wall sign, a ground sign and a tall ground sign such as a fast-food type. He
asked Freeman Wood, Inspection Superintendent, to explain to the Board how these
sign sizes are computed.
Freeman Wood referred to the top left picture of the drawings and stated that
they leave out the poles that support the sign but included everything else in
the square footage of the sign. Mr. Waldren asked if they included the top cap
of the sign in the total square footage. Mr. Wood answered, yes, the ordinance
just says the supporting structure shouldn't be counted but everything else does.
The cap is non -supporting and even if it doesn't have writing on it, it is
counted in the total square footage of the sign.
Mr. Wood referred to the McDonald's arches sign in the bottom lefthand corner of
the pagae and stated that the intent there is to go around the exterior of the
sign and count that but they don't count the top of the "M" in the middle where
it dips down.
Mr. Wood referred to the drawing in the top righthand corner of the page that
shows a brick supporting structure with a sign on it. He advised that with this
one, they have to use a little discretion because if the brick is only coming up
a foot or two it isn't counted in the total square footage. However, if it comes
up too far, it needs to be counted which makes it kind of a judgment call. This
• is shown on a hillside where it is unlevel and they would probably just count the
signage area and not the brick.
• Board of Sign Appeals
April 3, 1989
Page 4
•
•
Mr. Wood referred to the drawing in the bottom righthand corner of the page which
shows a "Showbiz Pizza" wallsign that consists of three parts. This is included
all as one sign with the space between the signs being included in the total
square footage. It is like drawing an imaginary rectangle around the three parts
and it would have to meet the 150 square feet or 20% area of the wall.
Chairman Mills referred back to the drawing in the upper lefthand corner and
asked if one of the signs hanging on this were the address would it be counted.
Mr. Wood stated that he thought it would be counted as part of the total square
footage. Chairman Mills stated that on one of the signs, maybe IBM, they did
not count the area on the address as part of the sign. Mr. Wood stated that if
they just had addresses there, he would say they wouldn't count it. However,
they wouldn't want a free-standing sign there that has 29 addresses on it that is
4' wide and 16' tall.
Mr. Waldren asked if one such as the drawing in the upper left-hand corner has
signs supended by a chain from the cap (top) of the sign, wouldn't the whole
thing be considered support. Mr. Tompkins stated that the support has been used
several times as cueing information. In other words, the supporting structure
will have telephone numbers, etc. on it. Mr. Wood stated that he has a problem
with some of the signs that are coming in such as one with part of the supporting
structure being as wide as the sign and going way up in the air and across the
top. He added that if it has posts, he doesn't have a problem with it.
Chairman Mills asked if they have anything that determines the size of the
support. Mr. Wood stated that in the ordinance it is rather broad and maybe
should need to be looked into because technically with the current ordinance a
sign could have supports that were 6'x 6' and hang a sign between them.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he is concerned about the real intent of this. The
professional discretion is really pertinent because they are getting into this
value system and urban aesthetics which is what this natural beauty component is
of the intent of the sign ordinance. He noted that they don't look at color on
signs. He commented that he has gotten a lot of calls on the "Auto Zone" sign.
Mr. Wood advised that it is a legal sign but it just barely qualifies.
Mr. Merrell stated that the staff, Planning Commission and the Board of Directors
have all been getting complaints about the "Auto Zone" sign. The surface area of
that sign that is painted on there can be no more than the 20% of the surface
area of that wall. It was measured twice and it worked out to be about 19.6%.
Mr. Boyd stated that they should maybe propose to the City Council that 20% may
be too much. Mr. Wood stated that the ordinance originally was set up where a
wall sign in a commercial zone could be as big as the wall. It was then cut down
to 20% to 150 square feet and this "Auto Zone" sign is the first one they have
had that has really went up to maximum size.
Chairman Mills stated that there seem to be vague areas in the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the sign ordinance is part of the Planning Consultant's
contract. Mr. Merrell answered, no, he is updating the zoning ordinance and
• Board of Sign Appeals
April 3, 1989
Page 5
•
•
parts of the subdivision regulations and other development controls but they
weren't able to get signs in the contract. He added that the staff is going to
be tied up with all the work and review of the work of the consultants through
the Fall so, any hope that the staff might have to really comprehensively review
and recommend some updates to the Sign Ordinance would have to wait until
probably next Winter.
Mr. Boyd advised that Beverly Hills, California had a strict Sign Ordinance and
maybe they could get a copy of it. Ms. Wright stated that Lake Tahoe also has a
very strict Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Tompkins stated that they are in an abstract value area in natural beauty and
it is hard to visualize what it is an applicant wants. Then when this is related
to neighborhood, etc, it is hard to visualize whether it is going to be good or
bad. He added that when people come in, they could give them an idea of what
they are going to put up such as a brochure or drawing. Mr. Wood stated that
they have that kind of information from big companies such as McDonalds & Hardees
but the average citizen that comes in has a sketch drawn and has the sign made up
after he gets a permit.
Ms. Wright stated that a lot of companies manufacture only certain size signs.
She advised that she is in the insurance business and that is one of the
companies with the standard signs. However, because of the Fayetteville Sign
Ordinance she couldn't use her company's standard size so: she had to have a sign
made at her own expense. This is a problem that some businesses have in
Fayetteville; they can't meet their company's requirements for the standard sign
size. Mr. Wood stated that with this they run into the problem where a company
has a smaller standard size sign that they don't tell the staff about until they
are turned down on the larger one.
Chairman Mills commented that various Board members need to make a note of the
things in the Ordinance that they would like to have changed or checked to give
the staff an idea of some of the questions they have.
Mr. Merrell advised that this Board will have a leading role in any revisions to
the Sign Ordinance.
STREET NUMBERS:
Chairman Mills asked who is responsible for making sure that there are street
numbers on the buildings. Mr. Wood stated that has been a real problem. With
new businesses and new buildings, the number has to be there before they will set
water but it is a problem with the existing buildings. Mr. Merrell stated that
in a sense it is the Inspection Department's responsibility.
Mr. Davis advised that the numbers are on the curbs in his neighborhood.
Chairman Mills noted that some areas of town don't have curbs.
Mr. Tompkins asked if it would be appropriate for this Board to advise the Board
• Board of Sign Appeals
April 3, 1989
Page 6
of Directors that this is a problem they have been facing for quite some time and
perhaps they could put it on their agenda to do something about it. Chairman
Mills stated that she would like to send a request to the Board of Directors that
they look into having readable street numbers on all of the businesses.
Mr. Waldren stated that the County with the 911 system is actively involved in
getting an accurate address for every building so they have some power through
the 911 legislation to enforce that.
Mr. Merrell asked if they want to gear this request only for businesses and not
residences. Chairman Mills answered that they should gear it toward everything.
Mr. Merrell suggested that perhaps he and Freeman Wood could relay this request
to the City Attorney and look at any legal aspects, then ultimately speak to the
City Manager about sending it on to the Board of Directors. They will then give
them a report as to where they stand on it.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he isn't sure they should have an intermediary between
them and the Board of Directors. Therefore, why don't they draft a letter for
them and then this Board will send it. Mr. Merrell stated that they will do
that and in the meantime they will meet with Jim McCord and discuss whatever
legal aspects there might be.
•
i
:yS,